claim_verdict

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses Ed25519 signing, hash-chaining, three fixed outcomes, no forced guess, and the free tier. However, it doesn't mention the public reputation-ledger side effect (only in schema) and lists 'multi-exchange price consensus' as a ground-truth source that is unsupported by the resolver enum, creating a mild inconsistency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two front-loaded sentences with no waste. The main action and return value lead, and the signing/hash-chaining and free-tier notes are useful context that earns their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, it clearly states the possible return values and key behavioral guarantees. It could add handling for invalid resolvers or the public-ledger effect, but for a 3-parameter tool the description is substantially complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level insight beyond the schema; the claim example already lives in the schema, and the resolver list mismatch introduces confusion rather than clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (submits a claim) and a specific return (signed verdict), and enumerates external ground-truth sources. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling verify_receipt, but the scope is clearly claim veridication against real-world evidence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like verify_receipt, file_dispute, or screen_entity. It implies claims need external ground truth but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.